Laserfiche WebLink
so that there are no additional units constructed beyond existing conditions; there is a <br />significant presence of EJ communities that are served by parks, but the existing parks are <br />very small. <br />South Bristol Focus Area. District Center (DC) changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN) to <br />reduce intensity by 2,273 units on sites that are more than a half mile from existing parks <br />generally west of Bristol and south of MacArthur Boulevard). <br />Grand Avenue/17th Street. Stay as currently planned as a lower density residential (LR-7) <br />and commercial corridor (GC) to reduce intensity so that there are no additional units <br />constructed beyond existing conditions, because much of the focus area is more than a half <br />mile from existing parks. <br />West Santa Ana Boulevard. This focus area would remain as currently planned with lower <br />density residential (LR-7) instead of Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce intensity so that no <br />additional units are constructed beyond existing conditions; there is a significant presence of <br />EJ communities with areas that are farther than a half mile from existing parks in this focus <br />area. <br />55 Freeway/Dyer Road. District Center (DC) changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce <br />intensity by 5,381 units because a majority of the area is more than a half mile from existing <br />parks in Santa Ana; the reduced intensity would also reduce potential impacts on adjacent <br />parkland in Tustin. <br />Finding. The City Council rejects the Reduced Park Demand Alternative on the basis of policy <br />and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA <br />Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, <br />417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; <br />Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific <br />economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment <br />opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the <br />Recirculated PEIR. <br />This alternative would result in similar impacts to 6 impact categories, reduced impacts to 12 <br />categories, and increased impacts to 2 categories. Impacts would be similar for aesthetics, <br />agricultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral <br />resources, and wildfire. This alternative would decrease impacts to air quality, biological <br />resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, <br />population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, transportation, and <br />utilities and services. It would reduce the recreation impacts of the proposed GPU, as it was <br />designed to do, and would improve the park acres/resident ratio compared to the proposed GPU. <br />Recreation impacts to disadvantaged communities would also be reduced. Given the lack of <br />available land for new parks, however, it would not eliminate the significant, unavoidable impact <br />of the project. It would be expected to increase land use and planning impacts relative to the GPU. <br />As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, <br />Santa Ana General Plan Update <br />CE <br />Of v ri <br />i <br />g <br />o FactanStatement41 — <br />84 12L211202 i <br />in nsiderations -61-October 021